Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? - Foreign Affairs (2) - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Politics / Foreign Affairs / Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? (3620 Views)
Before Obama's Action Against Russia, Putin Spoke Of An Impending War [video] / President Obama Orders Sanctions Against Russia In Response To Hacking / Obama Promises Action Against Russia (2) (3) (4)
| Re: Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? by Stalwert: 5:31pm On Apr 22, 2016 |
No, If the war is about vodka |
| Re: Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? by seunny4lif(m): 5:53pm On Apr 22, 2016 |
Missy89:They are still in pain cos the ruin of the war is still there Even till now, they are still discovering bombs on the street of Berlin Imagine over 30 M of their population be killed btw WW1 & WW2 I'm not talking about what I have read here but where I have visited... The pics of the war and all the camps build by Hitler One more thing Russia and US can never go War... If you live in Europe than you will know that, Europe will never fight War with Russia at least for now... Cos they will suffer more than even US |
| Re: Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? by Appleyard(m): 10:50pm On Apr 22, 2016 |
Pennsylvania:Satan Arabia has overtaken Russia in military strenght?  In other words, Satan Arabia is militarily stronger than Russia, not to mention Britain, France, Germany, Israel, etc... Even the house of Saud would get angry by this comparison. My brother, military spendings doesn't dictate might and capabilities. Let that sink in.1 Like 2 Shares |
| Re: Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? by Appleyard(m): 10:55pm On Apr 22, 2016 |
Zoharariel:Let the man be. I sense he genuinely doesn't know what is what about the subject. He is mistaken spendings as capabilities. So, he can be forgiven. 1 Like 1 Share |
| Re: Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? by Appleyard(m): 11:12pm On Apr 22, 2016 |
Zoharariel:You realy have time and this long space to reply this jokers. Do they even realize why NATO is still in existence till date?  Immediately i saw the OP bean counting on weapons, i gave up. Just a few reply here and there. The kids just don't understand anything about war. They base their views on movies. And if i may ask: who among the European nations in NATO wants to fight Russia? France, Germany, Spain, Britain? for obvious reasons, we know why (with little reservations about Britain.)Now, if these nations won't go to war with Russia, then who else in NATO? Na wow o! 1 Like 1 Share |
| Re: Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? by Appleyard(m): 11:24pm On Apr 22, 2016 |
seunny4lif:Rambo first blood or second blood? 1 Like 1 Share |
| Re: Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? by seunny4lif(m): 12:31am On Apr 23, 2016 |
| All the blood joor Don't mind are those kids thinking One Rambo dey kill 100 people with hand Appleyard: |
| Re: Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? by danose99(m): 2:06am On Apr 24, 2016 |
Appleyard:..and what do you understand about war??..your opinions are mere assumptions on things you've read like everyone else |
| Re: Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? by danose99(m): 2:14am On Apr 24, 2016 |
seunny4lif:..and you're what??..a RUSSIAN ZOMBIE i guess |
| Re: Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? by seunny4lif(m): 3:07am On Apr 24, 2016 |
| Re: Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? by NairaMinted: 2:05pm On Apr 24, 2016 |
I do not engage in "debates" on military strength BUT see what the Amerikan military analysts and[i] generals[/i] themselves are saying: http://warontherocks.com/2016/04/outnumbered-outranged-and-outgunned-how-russia-defeats-nato/ OUTNUMBERED, OUTRANGED, AND OUTGUNNED: HOW RUSSIA DEFEATS NATO DAVID A. SHLAPAK AND MICHAEL W. JOHNSONAPRIL 21, 2016  T-90SM_-_RAE2013-04 When asked two weeks ago in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee whether the Army was “outranged” by any adversary, U.S. Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley said: “Yes … the ones in Europe, really Russia. We don’t like it, we don’t want it, but yes, technically [we are] outranged, outgunned on the ground.” Given Russia’s aggression in the Ukraine, this is sobering testimony. But is it accurate? Unfortunately, yes: Nearly two years of extensive wargaming and analysis shows that if Russia were to conduct a short-warning attack against the Baltic States, Moscow’s forces could roll to the outskirts of the Estonian capital of Tallinn and the Latvian capital of Riga in 36 to 60 hours. In such a scenario, the United States and its allies would not only be outranged and outgunned, but also outnumbered. Outnumbered? [/i]While the Russian army is a fraction of the size of its Soviet predecessor and is maintained at a level of imperfect readiness, we found that it could — in 10 days or so — generate a force of as many as 27 fully ready battalions (30–50,000 soliders in their maneuver formations, depending on precisely how they were organized) for an attack on the Baltics while maintaining its ongoing coercive campaign against Ukraine. All these Russian units would be equipped with armored vehicles — tanks, infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs), and so forth. NATO, meanwhile, would be able to respond largely with only light, unarmored, or lightly armored forces. These would consist of the forces of the Baltic republics themselves and those that the United States and its partners could rush to the scene in the few days of warning that would likely be available. Counting the “Very High Readiness Joint Task Force” (VJTF), NATO could optimistically deploy elements from three airborne infantry brigades, one Stryker brigade, and one U.S. armor brigade. Russia would achieve initial advantages in tanks (7:1), infantry fighting vehicles (5:1), attack helicopters (5:1), cannon artillery (4:1), long-range rocket artillery (16:1), short-range air defense (24:1), and long-range air defense (17:1). [i]Outranged? But the problem is not just numbers. The Russians field cannon and rocket artillery with significantly longer ranges than their U.S. counterparts. Existing Army tube artillery can generally fire at targets 14 to 24 kilometers (9 to 15 miles) away. Unfortunately, the most common Russian self-propelled howitzer NATO forces would encounter in the Baltics has a range of 29 kilometers (or 19 miles). On the battlefield, these differences matter. Moreover, at the moment, the United States has no Multiple-Launch Rocket System units deployed in Europe, but even if it were, and the range of its primary rocket is only 40–70 kilometers (25–44 miles) depending on payload. Meanwhile, Russian forces are richly equipped with two rocket artillery systems with ranges up to 90 kilometers (56 miles). [i]Outgunned? [/i]Here the evidence is somewhat less clear, but the situation is certainly far less favorable to the United States than it is accustomed to. While Russia’s tanks and IFVs in some cases share the same designations as those that U.S. forces encountered in Iraq in 1991 and 2003, those weapons have little in common besides the name. They have much more advanced armor, weapons, and sensors, and in some areas — such as active protection systems to defend against anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) — are superior to their Western counterparts. If a fight broke out today in the Baltics, Russian attack helicopters, IFVs, and even some tanks could employ ATGMs with an effective range that could penetrate the armor of most if not all NATO combat vehicles, including the U.S. M1 tank. The M1s might maintain a slight advantage in the close-in fight, if they survived to get there. But given the current U.S. posture, there would at best be only a few dozen on the field, compared to about 450 Russian. The Baltic states themselves have no heavy armor, and our analysis indicates that no other European heavy forces could make it to the frontlines in time to influence the outcome of a short-warning Russian assault. Beyond the disadvantages of being outnumbered, outranged, and outgunned, a slew of other issues compounds the problem. First, NATO allies and the U.S. military would be of limited immediate help offsetting these disadvantages. European allies followed the American lead by cutting armor and optimizing their remaining forces for “out-of-area” missions like Afghanistan. Thus, Great Britain is continuing with plans to withdraw its last troops from Germany, while Germany has reduced its army from a Cold War level of 10 heavy divisions to the equivalent of two. But it’s not just the numbers here that matter. The United States and its partners have also steadily reduced the infrastructure necessary to support any kind of substantial deterrent or defensive effort in Europe. Today, there are no U.S. division or corps headquarters forward-based on the continent, nor any Army aviation, engineer, and associated logistics brigades. Our analysis — which assumed brigades could be received, moved to the front, and then commanded, controlled, and supported once there — may have ignored significant shortfalls in all these dimensions. Deploying brigades is not enough. Without a plan, without adequate logistics, without robust command and control, a better-prepared adversary would still overwhelm NATO. Second, airpower has long been the U.S. trump card, and the Army relies on it to deliver fire support and protect its units from enemy air attack. This reliance has reduced the amount of artillery it deploys with its maneuver forces and, for all intents and purposes, has stripped them of organic air defenses. While these choices were entirely sound in facing the Taliban and Iraq’s air force and integrated air defenses, Russia is an entirely different story. Russia fields perhaps the most formidable array of surface-to-air missile (SAM) defenses in the world. Operating from locations within Russian territory, these SAMs far outrange existing defense-suppression weapons and present a credible threat to U.S. and allied airpower that would be costly and time-consuming to counter. Unlike recent American wars, getting air support will not be as easy as making a call and waiting. Especially in the crucial early days of any conflict, allied ground forces may find air support available only in narrow windows of time and space. And third, the Russians possess a credible air force of their own. Our analysis shows that Moscow could commit hundreds of fighter, attack, and bomber aircraft to an assault on the Baltic states. While such forces are ultimately qualitatively and quantitatively inferior to the alliance’s airpower, when teamed with Russia’s surface-to-air defenses, such forces could present a threat to U.S. and allied ground forces moving to reinforce or counterattack. Without ground-based air defenses of their own, and with limited overhead cover from NATO air forces, U.S. Army formations could suffer serious attrition from enemy air attack for the first time since World War II. On top of all these issues, geography is a harsh mistress in this scenario. It’s about 130 miles from the Russian border to Riga, a distance that modern armored forces can traverse in a matter of hours. Even against fierce opposition from airpower, our analysis shows that there is simply not enough time to inflict sufficient damage to halt a Russian attack, absent sufficient NATO ground forces to slow their movement and force invaders to operate in ways that make them more vulnerable to air attack. This is intrinsically a joint fight, not one that can be won on the ground or from the skies alone. Add in the fact that the Bush administration decided — and the Obama administration affirmed — that, beginning in 2019, U.S. forces will no longer use cluster weapons that leave more than one percent of their ordnance unexploded on the ground. While admirable on humanitarian grounds, this decision — for which there is no parallel on the Russian side — will significantly reduce the effectiveness of U.S. artillery and air fire against Russian artillery, air defense, and mechanized targets. Given the weakness of NATO’s overall posture, this is no trivial concession. Today NATO is indeed outnumbered, outranged, and outgunned by Russia in Europe and beset by a number of compounding factors that make the situation worse. Having said that, it is possible to begin restoring a more robust deterrent posture and to do so at a price tag that appears affordable in the context of an alliance with an aggregate GDP of $35 trillion. The enlarged European Reassurance Initiative announced by the administration is a step in the right direction, though not a complete solution. Also, NATO’s European members must begin making the necessary investments to fulfill their commitments to the alliance’s collective defense; this is not just America’s problem. It seems unlikely that Vladimir Putin intends to turn his guns on NATO any time soon. However, the consequences should he decide to do so are severe. Probably the best outcome — if the phrase has any meaning in this context — would be something like a new Cold War, with all the implications that bears. A war with Russia would be fraught with escalatory potential from the moment the first shot was fired; and generations born outside the shadow of nuclear Armageddon would suddenly be reintroduced to fears thought long dead and buried. A situation 20 years in the making will not be solved overnight, nor will solving it be politically simple or non-controversial for an alliance consisting of 29 members with different priorities and perceptions. Nonetheless, the potential consequences of failing to do so are so dire that prudent investments — in improved posture and thoughtful, targeted modernization of the joint force — to stave them off are warranted to assure allies living next to a belligerent Russia and to provide an insurance policy against the risks of a potential catastrophe. David A. Shlapak is a senior international research analyst and Michael W. Johnson is a senior defense research analyst at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation. Photo credit: Aleksey Kitaev |
| Re: Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? by NairaMinted00: 9:46pm On Apr 24, 2016 |
I do not engage in "debates" on military strength BUT see what the Amerikan military analysts and generals themselves are saying: http://warontherocks.com/2016/04/outnumbered-outranged-and-outgunned-how-russia-defeats-nato/ |
| Re: Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? by Appleyard(m): 10:26pm On Apr 24, 2016 |
seunny4lif: |
| Re: Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? by seunny4lif(m): 10:47pm On Apr 24, 2016 |
| Bros no dey stress yourself again I'm not a supporter of any of dem Both are self center NairaMinted00: |
| Re: Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? by NairaMinted: 6:07pm On Apr 25, 2016 |
This is what i was trying to post yesterday. Rather than debate like arm-chair Generals that we are, why don't we look at what the experienced and informed Generals themselves are saying. All this Satan this, Minuteman that, etc doesn't make any sense if you aren't the one in charge of these systems yourself, aware of their present state - or capabilities - and that of your enemy's as well.. Now, as to if this is an actually an admission of the superiority that the Russians enjoy or as to if this is a ploy to justify an ever increasing budget geared towards addressing the much harped "Russian agression" and further encircling her, I do not know. Study and draw your own conclusions Cc: Arm-chair Generals , Appleyard, Scully95, Zoharariel, etchttp://warontherocks.com/2016/04/outnumbered-outranged-and-outgunned-how-russia-defeats-nato/ OUTNUMBERED, OUTRANGED, AND OUTGUNNED: HOW RUSSIA DEFEATS NATO 1 Like
|
| Re: Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? by NairaMinted: 6:08pm On Apr 25, 2016 |
"Today NATO is indeed outnumbered, outranged, and outgunned by Russia in Europe and beset by a number of compounding factors that make the situation worse. Having said that, it is possible to begin restoring a more robust deterrent posture and to do so at a price tag that appears affordable in the context of an alliance with an aggregate GDP of $35 trillion. The enlarged European Reassurance Initiative announced by the administration is a step in the right direction, though not a complete solution. Also, NATO’s European members must begin making the necessary investments to fulfill their commitments to the alliance’s collective defense; this is not just America’s problem. It seems unlikely that Vladimir Putin intends to turn his guns on NATO any time soon. However, the consequences should he decide to do so are severe. Probably the best outcome — if the phrase has any meaning in this context — would be something like a new Cold War, with all the implications that bears. A war with Russia would be fraught with escalatory potential from the moment the first shot was fired; and generations born outside the shadow of nuclear Armageddon would suddenly be reintroduced to fears thought long dead and buried." They also have a podcast so I'll definitely be listening in |
| Re: Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? by Nobody: 6:36pm On Apr 25, 2016 |
NairaMinted: Nairaminted - May Obatala bless you for this input. Mazeltov & ValerianSteel, where art thou? Come and tell us how NATO will crush Russia within 3days since you seem to know more than the Amerikan Army Chief of Staff - General Mark Milley 2 Likes |
| Re: Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? by NairaMinted: 6:43pm On Apr 25, 2016 |
Zoharariel: If NATO attacks Russia, kiss ya mama, ya papa, ya wife and ya kids cos there is no guarantee humanity is emerging unscathed. This is not Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Syria, kaza kaza.... THIS IS RUSSIA. The Hegemon's best bet is with the 5th columnists and hybrid warfare (the Atlantic-integrationalists The Saker calls them) BUT full scale military conflict? Mba! 2 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? by scully95: 7:23pm On Apr 25, 2016 |
Zoharariel: Ase !! 1 Like 1 Share |
| Re: Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? by scully95: 7:48pm On Apr 25, 2016 |
NairaMinted: This is purely over exaggerating and marketing nothing but fear and war mongering like it was done perfectly against the soviet era. They are stuck in the pre-soviet era. These guys really need to wake up from their slumber. Then it was "Communist" they marketed to the highest level. A Russia will continue to have NATO Outnumbered, OUTRANGED AND OUTGUNNED cos of its Military doctrine but this is not Russia invading those regions but a Russia protecting its interest (Multi Polar world order which the empire wants to contain). And you know anything Russia figures out is threat to NATIONAL security, it would be dealt with immediately and they have done just that in Ukraine and in Georgia. This is also a ploy to continue pushing the puppets mostly those in eastern Europe to finally commit suicide as it's so easy for the Empire of lies to plug in Pretext. Again, the Empire of lies, Anglozionist empire is deadly looking for a replay of Hitler. Now this is a very nice moment to recall the same way Canada and U.S were backing the Hilter to go on offensive with Russia/USSR. History repeating itself but now you are seeing body language from those that have committed suicide in the past and saw what happened. That is the Old Europe saying no to Washington Pushing to commit suicide but the eastern Europe live in a different world. This idea is simple. You have AngloZoo that wants to continue expanding and surround Russian boarders so it can make Russians bow to pressure. Now you have a Russia that is checkmating all the moves. I can fairly predict the future and I am being very realistic here. The empire has been eying Belarus for a long time. Now the Empire knows what they will get if they try a Ukraine. You will get a Ukraine if you try a Ukraine (regime change to install NATO Puppets) again. This is what is paining the ass of the AngloZionist empire the most. That Russia is doing what it does, and they can't continue the plan of containing Russia. You will never believe how it hurt them the most, when Russia defended Crimean peninsular. Aside that, I see nothing other than the points above because no matter how many free money they spend on junks. We all saw how Russia destroyed the stockpiles in Syria. Their Tier 1 and tier 2 terrorists Stockpiles. What Russia is doing is providing an Assymetric measure to counter all the junks. You have a good example of Billions being spent on TOW crap and it was rendered useless by how much ? Same goes to all the junks flying.. Rendered dead by S300. The funniest thing is, the TOW could not even penerate T90. Again Russia can do it again and again if threatened via any pretext or in an all out war. So you are seeing a replay of pre-world war 2 Nazi crooks and also the AngloZionist Empire stuck in soviet era . The Zionist controlled regime is looking for Nazis like to take on Russia so as to quickly change the regime there and reply a Yeltsin era. The Nazis in Ukraine is Checkmated already by the donabass and Luganks and to close it all Crimean peninsular. That wont be possible with the look of things. In Georgia you have south Ossetia doing the same thing.. 3 Likes 2 Shares |
| Re: Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? by Nobody: 8:13pm On Apr 25, 2016 |
scully95: Scully My Niggy - You're too much! 3 Likes 2 Shares
|
| Re: Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? by seunny4lif(m): 9:12pm On Apr 25, 2016 |
scully95: 3 Likes 2 Shares |
| Re: Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? by mazeltov(m): 7:07pm On Apr 26, 2016 |
NairaMinted:I respect you a lot, at least with some of your top-notch inputs on this section, but somtimes, you do try to squeeze facts out of fallacies. Let me ask you this question. In a sentence, tell me why you think that Nato would be defeated against Russia? 1 Like |
| Re: Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? by NairaMinted: 7:16pm On Apr 26, 2016 |
mazeltov: I am not the one that thinks so; the U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley thinks so.  What I do know however is Russia unlike those runts that Amerika has been picking on over the years, ain't no push over. Their arsenal and their history tells me so. My turn to ask you a question: Why does Amerika require mobilizing an entire military alliance -NATO - to counter just one country? 1 Like 1 Share |
| Re: Does NATO Stand A Chance In A War Against Russia? by mazeltov(m): 8:00pm On Apr 26, 2016 |
NairaMinted:my answer to ur question may give u insight to the question I asked earlier. A war with Nato is an Indirect war with America. 1 Like |
The Trump's History Of Black Hate / Interesting Article, Destroying Myth Most Blacks Are On Welfare. / Was 9/11 Really Just An Act Of Terrorism Or An Inside Job By The US Govt.?
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 111 |